CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa–A member of the Iowa Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s universities, who has been raising concerns over credit unions that bear the names of those universities, did not disclose that he is a part owner in a bank in the state, according to the new report.
As CUToday.info reported here, some members of the Board of Regents have been arguing that credit unions like University of Iowa Community CU could represent a “reputational risk” to the university should some negative event take place.
Those concerns are being raised at the same time there is also a divisive debate in the state over the credit union tax exemption over certain state taxes, as CUToday.info most recently reported here.
In an editorial, the Gazette opined, “Unfortunately…(m)embers of the state Board of Regents, tasked with governing Iowa’s public universities, put forth a policy proposal which clearly seems intended to influence the debate over taxing credit unions.”
The Gazette further noted that Regent Larry McKibben, who has said he has been working on a policy that would restrict the outside use of the Regent institutions’ names and trademarks, is “highly suspect” in the timing of the plan.
“Most concerning is McKibben failed to disclose his ties to the banking industry,” the Gazette wrote. While McKibben left his conflict of interest disclosure form filed with the board blank, business records obtained by Gazette reporter Vanessa Miller show McKibben is part owner of Farmers Savings Bank in Marshalltown.
The newspaper further reported that Regent Nancy Dunkel serves on the board of directors at Principal Bank in Des Moines, which she did include on her disclosure filing.
“Regardless of the merits of (the Iowa tax) legislation, bank stakeholders who hold distinguished state government positions ought to be extremely careful to not give the impression of undue influence,” wrote the Gazette. “Hinting about an unsubstantiated, hypothetical scandal at Iowa financial institutions crosses that line. The Board of Regents’ actions this year seem like a ploy to make the public and policymakers distrustful of credit unions, rather than a legitimate policy concern.”